General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No, Conservapedia is not satire [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)He changed, for instance, "Physicists often explain how the equation is used in nuclear power generation, nuclear weapons, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, and speculation about antimatter" (with a reference to a Univ. of Pittsburgh site) to "Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that the equation is used in...".
And when 'PhysicsPerson' tried to get some sanity back into the article, Aschlafly then changed it from:
"It is a statement that relates all matter to energy. It has been accepted by virtually all physicists for over 100 years. "
to:
"It is a statement that purports to relate all matter to energy. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed. Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Though accepted by virtually all physicists for over 100 years, there are laymen who think that E=mc² is liberal claptrap. "
The history shows that it's the site owner putting in the crap; some contributors are trying to save him from his own stupidty; and he's having none of it. I was ready to say "of course, some people troll Conservapedia and put in ridiculous stuff just to make the whole farce look even worse, and it could be one of those", but it's Andrew Schlafly doing it. Proudly. And it's been like that for over 2 years: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/conservapedia_founder_takes_on_the_notorious_liber.php